I will pay the 25,000 NXT for the 'ORA' name on the MS. I can afford it, and I think it's better that we don't sell any ORA for this purpose now that we're likely to change the original distribution. As for the Nxt used to lock into the MS, why not a peppercorn of 1 Nxt? If ORA gains community 'trust' and is fully decentralised as a Starfish, do we need to have any Nxt backing? Maybe not.

+1. Unemployed atmo and funds are tight

Thanks for the input Mark!! I think this new trajectory is really exciting, and should be very effective at helping ORA grow into something pretty cool

Is it too late to get in on Ora distribution? How to get a stake?

For those not familiar with the details of how the NXT monetary system works, here are a couple of great sources of information

http://nxter.org/nxt-for-financial-experts-local-groups-and-cryptofans/

https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/136/monetary-system

The more people who know how the MS works the better are our chances of designing a great system (there are plenty of options we can use, and once created the ORA MS currency can't be changed). Also, if we're going to pursue coinsolidations's suggestion of letting other coins burn into ORA, then we need to understand all the implications of that, and it's critical we do this in the most efficient and optimal way. I think we should start creating some MS ORA simulations on the testnet so we can start experimenting.

The NXT MS is incredibly powerful! Did you know that MS currencies can 'mint' new coins using PoW, just like a regular PoW crypto like bitcoin!

That got me thinking about PoW coins that do 'useful' computations, like Gridcoin does with Boinc. Could ORA use 'meaningful' PoW to mint new coins? Would that let us add new 'migrant' coins into the future via burning (i.e. the option to add new 'migrant' coins is open ended for a while), expanding the ORA supply via PoW minted ORA in some way? If we increased the ORA coin supply at the same time we increased the number of ORA users (and so ORA demand) would that still cause 'inflation' that reduced the purchasing power of ORA (i,e, the price dropped)? In the long-term probably yes, but what about just over the bootstrapping period we're trying to attract 'refugees' from dead & dying coins? I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to explore possibilities. Maybe we set a deadline for adding migrant coins. I do strongly believe that the bedrock of crypto currency success is people, and the more people using ORA, the better our chances of adoption and long-term success!

Could the ORA app perform PoW minting to do 'useful' computational work, something that creates real economic value?

Possibilities are very exciting to ponder, and I encourage everyone to get their thinking hats on, and share their thoughts!!

Thanks Darkhorse! The changes we are proposing WILL reduce each original ORA stakeholders share of the final MS currency we launch. IMO the change (letting people 'burn' coins currently on crypto 'life-support' in exchange for coins in ORA2) should increase the ORA community and user-base significantly, and thus the potential & viability of ORA. While the original ORA1 stakeholders will obviously end up with a smaller % of the ORA2 'pie', bringing in extra people and talent from other coins on the brink of failure will INCREASE the size of the ORA2 'pie' significantly, so I'm confident the original ORA stakeholders will end up being a LOT better off.

Which would you rather - X% of AltaVista, or 0.X% of Google -  Y% of MySpace, or 0.Y% of Facebook?

I like the change in direction suggested by coinsolidation (Mark), and I think it can make ORA a lot stronger, and help us reach 'critical mass' in terms of adoption a lot quicker than expected, but maybe some ORA stakeholders don't ...  if you don't like this plan, or you have some suggestions for modifications to the basic idea we're proposing, SPEAK NOW! We're listening

I like the proposed changes and having more people involved in ORA by burning other coins, but I don't like having too much of the pie in a treasury account for a very long time. (And even a year is much in crypto right now)
It's not that I don't trust you... people in contact with ora the first time wouldn't. It's a too centralised idea.
Maybe smart contracts can solve this issue in future, but I think for now it's better to reduce the time having a high amount in a treasury account.

Something definitely worth to look at. Will do so. But the structure may "force" us to do so thetefore please advice what are the projects that you think is worth adopting so we can proceed with talks.

Edit: i think we should focus more what techs we need to adopt that gives real value. Projects like someone has an idea to integrate fiat to crypto, LETS, gamecoins etc. Something people will have usefulness. Randomly adding projects and adding valuable projects has its benefits. I would go for the latter, adding more value to the coin. What do you think? It's like direction.

Thanks Mark! I agree, we need to start reaching out to coin communities with this idea, especially ones where the community was reasonably 'together' for an extended period of time.

@everyone reading, please make suggestions on coins you think might be suitable to 'burn' into ORA. There's no rules here, so if you want to get pro-active and post about this new direction for ORA in other coin threads, then go for it! There are so many alt coins around now that it's unlikely any single person has a knowledge of all the possible coin communities that might be open to joining ORA, so we really need INPUT and suggestions from everyone. My only request is that we show respect in other threads, and don't get overly spammy.

@th4o, I agree that it's a community goal to draw down the treasury funds asap, but in saying that I think we still have to take sufficient time to 'execute' the distributions without making too many mistakes, and there are ways to mitigate the obvious downside of having large amounts of funds centralised. NXT will have multi-sig implemented soon (I think), and once that's in place we can use a similar process to the SuperNET with multiple treasurers needing to sign off on any distributions from the community funds.

It obviously wont sit well with everyone, and that concern 'in principle' (i.e. centralisation is dangerous) is well founded IMO, and that helps to keep everyone on their game. I would like to say that our two community treasurers (Darkhorse & fragORA) are doing a magnificant job, and both have my full support. Darkhorse in particular has established himself as a trusted and respected member of the NXT community, and as he is currently in control of the majority of ORA's community funds, that should give us ALL a good measure of confidence, but yes, it'll be a good day when the bulk of the coins are mostly distributed with the remainder held in mult-sig accounts controlled by multiple people.

BTW: The documentation got updated: https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/205/monetary-system-documenation

Let´s discuss the ORA currency properties. I´m thinking of the following:


To be able to exchange the currency to NXT and maybe even other currencies later is a must have. Controllable, Reservable, Claimable aren´t any features for ORA, as all stakes are distributed initially. Shuffling will be one of the big features in my eyes.
For the Mining feature there must be minimal and maximal difficulty values. There will be little to no miners at the beginning, so the diff shouldn´t be too low?? How many units should be allocated to mining, if any?
What´s your opinion on all this?


Of course the final setup should be tested completely on NXT testnet once 1.4e is ready, as it isn´t possible to change something after issuing ORA.